If there's anyone who thinks the conviction of defrocked Boston priest
Paul Shanley on child rape charges Monday is a cause for great celebration,
take a look at the evidence. And that means all the evidence, which unfortunately,
the jury never got the chance to see.

In one of the highest-profile cases in the Catholic Church sexual abuse
scandal -- and because of statute of limitation laws, one of only a handful
to go to trial -- the former priest was convicted of repeatedly yanking
a Sunday-schooler out of classes and raping him during the 1980s.

Actually, that's the latest version of the criminal case, which began
three years ago when four young men who had been classmates at a Newton,
Mass., parish filed criminal charges against Shanley. At least two of
their cases hinged on repressed memories, which the accusers said flooded
back to them after they saw a newspaper article naming Shanley as the
alleged abuser of teens and young adults who had sought out the priest
for counseling.

Before anyone goes there, know that repressed memories can indeed be
real, as proved by Frank Fitzpatrick, a Massachusetts man who after recalling
the horror he endured as a child scoured the country until he tracked
down in Minnesota the former priest who eventually admitted raping dozens
of kids. Remember James Porter?

But though countless civil suits have resulted from the Porter case,
it didn't start with a lawyer calling up Fitzpatrick and grilling him
until memories of rape popped up -- a highly unethical if not completely
illegal tactic by an attorney.

At the very least, as documented in the accuser's own handwriting, the
complainant in the Shanley case was in contact with the lawyer who would
later represent him in a $500,000 civil settlement with the Archdiocese
of Boston on the same claims -- before the alleged victim claims to have
remembered the abuse.

In a copy of the accuser's personal journal obtained by the News Tribune,
he writes: "(01 Feb 02) Memo to (lawyer's name) attorney confidential
communication. First heard of allegations on Shanley... thought 'Now that's
weird, he was such a nice guy. I never would've thought he'd do something
like that.' "

In two subsequent entries, on Feb. 8 and 9, the accuser writes of remembering
the priest pulling him out of class, but says "Still no memory."

Yet on Feb. 11, it did come, he writes, stating "Heard (a classmate)
was coming out.... Tidal wave!" with detailed recollections of being
naked in front of the priest, physical contact, and "the 3 of us
being brought to separate rooms... the bathroom most of the time, sometimes
to the rectory, sometimes to the confession room."

In the roller coaster ride of the church scandal since then that saw
a cardinal deposed, hundreds of abusive priests exposed nationally and
countless victims telling through tears undeniable tales of sexual terrorism,
two of the classmates mentioned in the journal and two others struck settlements
with the church. The cases were handled by the lawyer also mentioned in
the journal, and the attorney assisted the young men in filing criminal
charges against Shanley.

But one by one, the three others were dropped from the criminal case,
leaving the lone accuser to take the stand.

There, he acknowledged his entries in the journal, as well as a written
statement about him by his therapist, stating "Feb. 12. Need... to
return to Boston to meet with lawyer to pursue a class action settlement
against the Archdiocese of Boston."

Yet in their deliberations, jury members had to rely on their own recollections
because the journal -- and its distinct implication that the accuser had
spoken with the lawyer before regaining his memory -- was never entered
into evidence. Chalk that up as a lucky break for the prosecution and
gross stupidity for the defense, made especially meaningful when the jury
broke from its deliberations Monday to ask the judge for the journal and
was denied.

On top of that, defense attorney Frank Mondano certainly didn't make
the wisest choice in calling as his only witness Elizabeth Loftus, an
expert who junkets around the country on a crusade to debunk repressed
memories. Want to blow her out of the water? Just call Frank Fitzpatrick.

None of this is to say that Shanley is a great guy or that he never abused
anyone, though some of his most vocal alleged victims acknowledge they
were of legal age at the time the charismatic priest took advantage of
them. That doesn't make it right, and Shanley himself acknowledges never
taking his celibacy vows the least bit seriously, though he somehow justifies
his promiscuity by saying: "I never had sex with a child. I never
forced anyone into sex." That peculiar defense depends largely on
Shanley's vague definition of "child," which may include those
beyond puberty but younger than the age of consent. If so, his "never
forced anyone" contention goes out the window and he very well belongs
behind bars.

But not for a crime he didn't commit, or at least one for which there
is reasonable doubt that the journal clearly raises. Not if our legal
system is worth anything. And not if the hundreds of genuine victims of
abuse, whom I have gotten to know, cry and even laugh with over years
of covering this tragedy, are to celebrate any real victory.

That's one that would result in true justice, which didn't happen in
Massachusetts on Monday.

ROBIN WASHINGTON, the News Tribune's editorial page editor, covered the
Shanley case and church abuse scandal for the Boston Herald for two years.